Clothing is the root of all evil

Why do you guys want to believe that Humans weren't Humans in the past? I refuse to believe without any solid evidence that Humans were at one point
completely without an ego. Being more socially minded and subordinating the self to the group for survival does not mean that someone lacks personal
desires or property and makes perfect sense, but that doesn't mean that they were a bloody hive mind.

Let's take the example of neolithic tech level Homo Sapiens that we have discovered in the modern era with no previous contact with outsiders in
recorded history who live much like their ancestors have lived for tens or hundreds of thousands of years. They act like modern Homo Sapiens in that
they have an ego and a tribal hierarchy and social structure.

Now you want to tell me that the members of the same species with the same brain and the same level of development in the brain were completely
without an ego 114,000 years ago simply because we hadn't started wearing full body clothing? Also, the development of lice that live on full body
clothing doesn't preclude loincloths or kilts or the like, and it would be next to impossible to find something like that because organic materials
decay. Also, there are more things that are obviously different between people besides clothing, like hair, facial structure, voice, and eye color.
Clearly women (or men from the opposite viewpoint) are the root of all evil because some are more attractive than others and that causes envy. Clearly
spears are the root of all evil because some are better built than others and that causes envy. Clearly domiciles are the root of all evil because
some keep the rain and wind out better than others and that causes envy. I can find so many things that are not perfectly evenly distributed in any
society that clothing doesn't strike me as novel, and neither does envy.

Originally posted by Mkoll
Why do you guys want to believe that Humans weren't Humans in the past? I refuse to believe without any solid evidence that Humans were at one point
completely without an ego. Being more socially minded and subordinating the self to the group for survival does not mean that someone lacks personal
desires or property and makes perfect sense, but that doesn't mean that they were a bloody hive mind.

Let's take the example of neolithic tech level Homo Sapiens that we have discovered in the modern era with no previous contact with outsiders in
recorded history who live much like their ancestors have lived for tens or hundreds of thousands of years. They act like modern Homo Sapiens in that
they have an ego and a tribal hierarchy and social structure.

Now you want to tell me that the members of the same species with the same brain and the same level of development in the brain were completely
without an ego 114,000 years ago simply because we hadn't started wearing full body clothing? Also, the development of lice that live on full body
clothing doesn't preclude loincloths or kilts or the like, and it would be next to impossible to find something like that because organic materials
decay. Also, there are more things that are obviously different between people besides clothing, like hair, facial structure, voice, and eye color.
Clearly women (or men from the opposite viewpoint) are the root of all evil because some are more attractive than others and that causes envy. Clearly
spears are the root of all evil because some are better built than others and that causes envy. Clearly domiciles are the root of all evil because
some keep the rain and wind out better than others and that causes envy. I can find so many things that are not perfectly evenly distributed in any
society that clothing doesn't strike me as novel, and neither does envy.

I never suggested humans were not humans in the past. As no one posting on this site was alive during the time frames I am bringing up, no one can
definitively say what these societies did or did not do.

You are assuming these neolithic tribes are living like their ancestors have for 10s or 100s of thousand years. Yes they have ego, social
structure, and hierarchy. They also all have clothing. So I personally do not see this as a point to refute my hypothesis.

I do not want to tell you anything. Again this is a hypothesis that I formulated with supporting evidence.

In a small tribe of approximately 30 to 60 people, chances are after a few generations most individuals would look pretty close to everyone else due
to the small gene pool available. I know my cousins and I have been mistaken for brothers.
In regards to spears (weapons); I have shown in my OP the two timelines are removed by over 70,000 years. I am not suggesting there are not
differences. I am just suggesting clothing came first. I will also go so far as to suggest, that there was probably only one or two individuals
fashioning weapons, or tools for the whole collective.
It is my understanding there are not really individual domiciles with a lot of primitive societies. Usually they would all sleep in the same building
for warmth and protection. That is, they do so in societies that are agricultural based.
Hunter Gathers, being nomadic wouldn't build domiciles or at best a simple structure which all would help on:

Some of the earliest descriptions of structures built by Aboriginal people describe them using building materials such as boughs and branches for
timber frames covered with bark and hides for cladding. Stone structures such as caves and natural shelters were also used

So Abercrombuie and Fitch are not responsible for the decline of civiliazation, instead its predacessor - Neanderthal and Mammoth - is?

One could argue that. One could also argue Abercrombie and Fitch, is a direct result of the first clothes makers and are doing nothing more than
carrying on a time honored tradition.

I have also suggested in another thread in the last 12 hours, I can refute my hypothesis in this thread.
I have however been waiting for the collective ATS minds (yourself included as a [personally] respected member) to agree or disagree, with
evidence.
As so many have claimed recently in Rant or other threads, they feel the quality has gone down on this site, So I took it upon myself to give my most
sensational theory hoping the title might incite a passionate debate. As it is not, I am tempted to bring forth another topic, which I took a survey
on in college.
In the meanwhile, I will invite you, or any folk you know here to actually (potentially easily) poke holes in the argument that is the OP. But please,
do better (with supporting evidence) than those who have already tried.

ETA: Or support the hypothesis. I know where my logic fails, I do not know if said hypothesis is true

Well if we support the theory posed the validity would be based on necessity moving to greed. That greed, back during those days, revolved around
survival of the fittest. That revolves around what a male at the time could do to woo a female to their side for mating, which would spawn more and
more elaborate ways to one up ech other.

That attempt would spawn the discovery that wearing "clothes / items" could be used more than just for mating. As with everything, other people see
it and want to mimic it, which in turn moves the unique to the everyday, again forcing change to once again one up the others.

If we want to argue against the dispute then I would say "clothing / items" were an accidental yet society changing discovery. It would extend off
the idea that hunting for food resources would inevitabely result in realizing animal parts could be used for more than chow time.

The greed would come in based on the concept again of survival of the fittest. Those less succesfull in hunting gathering could compensate for that by
stealing from those who are successful.

The other possibility would be that evil has always existed and is in our DNA. There is and has always been a sense of survival. From the days of a
person fending for only themselves based on survival to one up for mating to needing more resources for a family as opposed to an individual.

From single survival to mating to families to communities to regions to states / provines to Countries / Nations to Continents and im sure from solar
system to multiple solar systems (human expansion to the stars) there is and will always be an argument as to why a person / place / entity should be
entitled to more of this or that over someone else.

Focusing on the against argument:
In a small tribe no one would have to steal as all would be shared, in order to keep the tribe strong. Safety in numbers being a key point to
humanities survival and eventual dominance of this planet.
I suppose if tribes banished members, there might be a rouge theif out there.
But that would be another reason to keep the whole tribe fed and well equipped.
And at 120,000 years ago, my guess would be death rather than banishment, why waste good meat.

When were the days of a single person fending only for themselves? Besides now.

There will also be arguments that the earth is 6000 years old, and man has never been on the moon. That doesn't make the arguments valid.

Jelousy and resentment both stem from envy. Which is a result of individual possession. Which started with. . .

True but in every situation where the "whole" shares there are people who no longer feel the need to put in 100% effort since its being provided for
them.

As far as looking out for only themselves there was a point in the past where the name of the game was nomadic hunter-gatherer. When there is not
enough food / resources to share does it not become survival of the fittest? Does survival of the fitest not eventually give way to be prepared? Being
prepared will mean contingency plans for those days when no food is found.. Wouldn't that mean those who have extra are going to be less likely to
share with those who could not fend for themselves?

Even in the animal kingdom that occurs... Why would humans be any different.

A group containing lots of altruists, each ready to subordinate their own selfish interests for the greater good of the group, may well have a
survival advantage over a group composed mainly or exclusively of selfish organisms. A process of between-group selection may thus allow the
altruistic behaviour to evolve. Within each group, altruists will be at a selective disadvantage relative to their selfish colleagues, but the fitness
of the group as a whole will be enhanced by the presence of altruists. Groups composed only or mainly of selfish organisms go extinct, leaving behind
groups containing altruists.

Darwin discussed the origin of altruistic and self-sacrificial behaviour among humans. Such behaviour is obviously disadvantageous at the
individual level, as Darwin realized: “he who was ready to sacrifice his life, as many a savage has been, rather than betray his comrades, would
often leave no offspring to inherit his noble nature” (p.163). Darwin then argued that self-sarcrificial behaviour, though disadvantageous for the
individual ‘savage’, might be beneficial at the group level: “a tribe including many members who...were always ready to give aid to each other
and sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection” (p.166).

As shown, survival of the fittest is exactly why food, even in scarcity, would be shared by all in the tribe.

edit on 7-4-2012 by
randomtangentsrme because: punctuation

ETA: Humans can survive not eating for many days. Over 100,000 years ago I assume it was rather commonplace only eating a few times a week

Originally posted by randomtangentsrme
As shown, survival of the fittest is exactly why food, even in scarcity, would be shared by all in the tribe.

edit on 7-4-2012 by
randomtangentsrme because: punctuation

ETA: Humans can survive not eating for many days. Over 100,000 years ago I assume it was rather commonplace only eating a few times a week

edit on 7-4-2012 by randomtangentsrme because: (no reason given)

True but then we run into the problem of that one tribe not sharing their resources with an outside / different / competing tribe.

Its a catch 22.. Everytime we observe and state one group would take care of others in their tribe, we then open the door of 2 seperate tribes being
present and competing against each other for the same resources.

Whether its 50 million years, 50k years, 5k years or 5 days ago and whether or not its animal / human we will always come back the the problem of
finite resources and competing interests and no consensus.

It makes me wonder if division is a genetic trait designed to complement the fight or flight / survival of the fittest? If we all got along with
everyone, able to ensure all peoples have access to all basic neccessities the quesiton would become can we advance as a species?

If all needs are met would our genetic make up continue as is - seeking advancement and exploration and the next best thing, the ability to want
something better, to advance an idea from A through Z? To seek to improve our technology, to question ideas and opinions?

Or would it fail us to the extent of complacency and eventual failure of the species?

The one thing that keeps humans going is the desire to explore and understand. To challenge thoughts / ideas / conceptions / understanding of the
universe etc.

I think if we did not have greed / differing opinions I think we would fail as a species. People woul lose the desire to explore.

The mindset would be why bother if everything I will ever need is supplied to me? I think greed might be one of the few concepts that allows humans to
advance. The haves verse the have nots. People get so upset by wall street that they look for ways to beat wall street to get what they see as
theirs.

Greed, while considered bad and counter productive, actually forces people to find other solutions and to challenge the status quo. In this case a
negative is required in order to draw out the positives?

If there is no negatives then why would we bother to look for improvement?

Originally posted by Mkoll
How can we claim to understand the Psyche of Homo Sapiens 114,000 years ago? They have the same brain as us, and I cannot understand they can claim
with such certainty the lack of an ego. I am sure that humans back then were more focused on community, but in my opinion that is a culture thing.
After all, the extended family group were the only humans that most people had extended contact with, and if you don't subordinate the self to the
group in that situation you risk being ostracized by the group and potential exile or death.

Subordination of self does not necessarily mean the elimination of self, however. A good balance between self and community can be achieved in my
opinion, but when a society takes it as far towards self-serving as ours has it causes a lot of trouble.

Congratulations on finding the key fault in the argument made by archaeo-psychoanalysts that should find something useful to do with their time.

Star for you.

Of course it's just stupid to state that:

The development of the human psyche was still at a very early stage, rooted far more in the collective than in any sense of personal
individuality. The ego and the self were still relatively or completely unformed.

I love your posts, and never expected you to grace this thread with your presence.
Would you care to take a stab at refuting my hypothesis? Or is the obvious distaste you feel about "archaeo-psychoanalysts" all we get?

I figured my OP would have been blasted apart by now. Not just the online sources I found.
Don't worry, I'm a big boy, I can take it.

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
And why you are so sure that Humans did not kill each other and robbed food from each other prior to clothing?
Ants are not known as the dressed type, but the wars they have....

I am not sure of anything. I gave this subject up to ATS to learn from it. I provided links and quotes, hoping to find someone to be able to do the
same to refute what I provided, and help me understand why or why not.
So far I've gotten a fair amount of opinion, and an enjoyable debate from one member. But nothing hard to refute my hypothesis.
At least until Harte replies. Then I'll probably have to eat crow.

As for clothing being the root of all evil, well...you say "personal possession leads to envy," meaning, I take it, that before people had personal
possessions, it wasn't possible for one person to become envious of another's stuff.

I disagree, because there are more things people are envious of than that:

Envy (also called invidiousness) is best defined as a resentful emotion that "occurs when a person lacks another's (perceived) superior quality,
achievement, or possession and either desires it or wishes that the other lacked it."

One can be envious, for example, of another's physical appearance, which has zero to do with personal possessions(at least until cosmetics were
invented!! --which btw was probably 3 days after clothes were invented). One can be envious of relationships of others in many ways: a girl becomes
envious of her lover's close relationship with his brother, a person may become envious of a friend's time spent with other friends, etc.
Ability can be envied. "How come Grokk never misses when he throws his spear?? Arrgh I hate him!"

Anyway you get the idea, hehe. Still, interesting OP. Lice providing answers to our distant past! If there is an Intelligent Designer out there
somewhere, he must have a great sense of humor.

uhm ok.. If you already know the answer why open up a debate on the topic?

Originally posted by randomtangentsrme
If all of our needs are met we woulds still (as you point out) have the "desire to explore and understand."

Mass migration and movement of humans is based on availability of resources - food, water, transportation (rivers / lakes and later on horses / wagons
/ cars trains airplanes). If those items are available then people lose the need to move on. We see this now in cities across the globe. It beocmes
ever more evident when we compare to developing countries who still have a very large agricultural dependence. The number of Chinese who used to live
in the country side are flocking to cities because of resources availability.

Originally posted by randomtangentsrme
How does greed equate to differing opinions?

Group A is able to gather enough food / resources and then some to last a year. Group B is not able to gather enough resources. In group A there is a
suggestion that they could share the resources with group b since they have extra. Someone in group A objects because in there mind group b did not do
a good enough job on there own, so why should group a carry them? Group b could possibly become dependent on group a, and the guy dissenting on
sending food sticks to that point.

You will either then have a consensus on not sending resources or sending resources.

Its possible the action tribe a takes could split their community, with half moving on to ensure they are only supporting themselves and not everyone
else. The issue then becomes how much resources is the group who leaves goign to take with them and will the remaining individuals allow that to
happen.

Greed has many names depending on political correctness and the individual morality people superimpose over the hypotheticals.

in the end though greed is person or group A has something that person or group B wants and cannot have.

whether its land / food / clothing / fertile agriculteral grounds / fertile hunting grounds all the way to people dissenting about sending food
resources to another group.
Without differing opinions, I agree the species would fail.
I look forward to seeing you writing a thread on these thoughts you posted.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here, but ugly people still reproduce. Fine female bodies and well hung male bodies are not going to outnumber
the fat, misshapen, small, etc. bodies of the unfortunate. We can all wish for a better body, and thank God we have clothes to compensate, but it will
not stop the ugly from making the beast with two backs.

I ment to "indulge you" on the topic of greed, unfortunatly my fiancee distracted me for a while prior to my posting and I didn't reread my half
written post prior to posting.
Forgive me, if I came across as rude.

As greed dosn't play into my OP, I assumed we were meandering away from the OP, although I found the subject also interesting. After posting I then
saw more individuals were posting in regards to the thread topic.
I do not know the answer to my hypothisis. I know where I feel my logic is weak, and now I know where Harte thinks a source of mine is weak.

I disagree that movment of humans is based on resources, I think we have always had a thirst for knowledge an exploration. If resources fueld our
movement, humanity would have found the Hawaiian Islands devoid of human population, once the europeans made it there.

I think tribes or bands (groups) did not often come into contact with each other if at all.
If they did I do not think they were altruistic between tribes. I do not see it as being a benefit to tribal survival.

Originally posted by XXX777
I'm not sure what you're getting at here, but ugly people still reproduce. Fine female bodies and well hung male bodies are not going to outnumber
the fat, misshapen, small, etc. bodies of the unfortunate. We can all wish for a better body, and thank God we have clothes to compensate, but it will
not stop the ugly from making the beast with two backs.

You do understand that a few hundred years ago "fat" was beautiful? And beauty is ever changing in the eyes of society. To take a modern American
social example, Christina Hendricks is considered beautiful today, and twenty years ago Kate Moss would have been the epitome of beauty.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.